Perspective on Eras: Wilt vs Kareem vs Hakeem vs Shaq

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

User avatar
wigglestrue
RealGM
Posts: 24,124
And1: 170
Joined: Feb 06, 2003
Location: Wiggling, after hitting a four-pointer of Truth

 

Post#21 » by wigglestrue » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:49 am

ponder276 wrote:NOTE: I'm not saying Wilt wasn't a great player - he was clearly amazing. I'm just saying I see nothing to suggest that Wilt was any better than the best Cs of modern times (Robinson, Hakeem, Shaq, etc.), and in modern times I can't see him putting up better numbers than those players did. Your "all eras of basketball are comparable" logic implies that Wilt could dominate modern players in the same way he dominated in the 60s.


Let me run it by you again, and let's see if you can pick up the actual logic I was using this time: 1) Wilt, at age 36, was able to hold his own against Kareem-at-his-best, 2) Kareem, in his mid-late 30's, was able to hold his own against Hakeem-at-nearly-his-peak, 3) Hakeem, at his peak and just beyond, was able to hold his own against Shaq-at-his-peak, and 4) an overweight aging Shaq holds his own today against the best the NBA has to offer. That chain of logic doesn't merely suggest that all eras are comparable (although they are comparable, by definition), it virtually proves that Wilt-about-to-retire could hold his own again the best centers today. Would that version of Wilt be better or worse than Center A or Center B? I don't know. Sure the hell seems that way, no matter who Center A or B is, based on Wilt's stats from the last two seasons, based on his having been at the center of one of the greatest championship teams of all time in his penultimate year. It assuredly means that he could hold his own, at the very least. A 35-36 year old Wilt could hold his own. Against the best centers today. Literally. With no normalization needed, no speculation required. You could pluck him with a time machine from 1972 and know for a fact that he could hold his own today. Now: What could a Wilt-at-his-absolute-peak do today? There's the area of speculation you wanted. Not what my OP was about, though.
0:01.8 A. Walker makes 3-pt shot from 28 ft (assist by E. Williams) +3 109-108
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9qvmXiEuU
User avatar
ponder276
Head Coach
Posts: 6,075
And1: 67
Joined: Oct 14, 2007

 

Post#22 » by ponder276 » Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:28 am

Your logic does not prove much, especially since the term "holds his own" is extremely subjective. Let me put it this way:
- Top power lifters from the 60s could still put up respectable, but not amazing lifts in the 70s when they were past their prime
- Top power lifters from the 70s could still put up respectable, but not amazing lifts in the 80s when they were past their prime
- Top power lifters from the 80s could still put up respectable, but not amazing lifts in the 90s when they were past their prime
- Top power lifters from the 90s could still put up respectable, but not amazing lifts in the 00s when they were past their prime

BUT top power lifters from the 60s would get laughed off the stage in modern competitions, even in their prime. Top power lifters from the 60s, trying to do lifts in the 70s, when they were past their prime, would do even worse.

The actual numbers here are:
Late 60's: bench press record was approximately 230 kg
1969: bench press record was 280 kg
1980: bench press record was 300 kg
1990: bench press record was 327 kg
1996: bench press record was 354 kg
1999: bench press record was 408 kg
2004: bench press record was 456 kg
2007: bench press record was 476 kg


NOTE: I used power lifting as an analogy because it has a measure of ability that can easily measured, unlike basketball, which is very subjective. I believe this shows clear flaws in your logic, which does not take into account slow, but steady progression in the sport, even during the lifetime of athletes.

NOTE 2: I probably did misinterpret you slightly in my first post, but in you initial post (quoted below), it's not very clear what your point is:
wigglestrue wrote:An aging Wilt played against a peak Kareem, and held his own.
An aging Kareem played against a peak Hakeem, and held his own.
An aging Hakeem played against a young Shaq, and held his own.
An aging Shaq plays against every player today, and holds his own.

More food for thought, the 5 highest single season FG% in NBA history:

1. Wilt Chamberlain - .727, 1972-73
2. Wilt Chamberlain - .683, 1966-67
3. Artis Gilmore - .670, 1980-81
4. Artis Gilmore - .652, 1981-82
5. Wilt Chamberlain - .649, 1971-72


Note #1 and #5, those were Wilt's last two seasons. He was 35 and 36 years old, respectively. In each season, he played all 82 games. He averaged 42.3 and 43.2 minutes per game, respectively -- 19.2 and 18.6 rebounds, 4.0 and 4.5 assists. Those were his final two seasons. Christ.
User avatar
Ming Kong!
RealGM
Posts: 24,480
And1: 31
Joined: Nov 21, 2002
Location: Jazz fan in Miami, FL.

 

Post#23 » by Ming Kong! » Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:36 am

Wilt would have been the best player in any era he played because of his mind set to be the best. The only other player that has this sheer level of dominance is MJ. Still I think Wilt would have been a better player. Remember, Wilt was a track and field athlete, and volleyball player as well. His conditioning was as good any, probably even better than Karl Malone's. I mean 48.5mpg? That's freakish!
User avatar
wigglestrue
RealGM
Posts: 24,124
And1: 170
Joined: Feb 06, 2003
Location: Wiggling, after hitting a four-pointer of Truth

 

Post#24 » by wigglestrue » Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:44 am

ponder276 wrote:NOTE: I used power lifting as an analogy because it has a measure of ability that can easily measured, unlike basketball, which is very subjective.


:rofl:

Dude, you're talking about lifting, which is one discrete action. Basketball isn't "very subjective" either, unless I missed it today when Stern implemented a fan-voting system to determine the winner of games. Are you trying to suggest that an aging overweight Shaq would dominate a peak Kareem or something? I don't get it.

I believe this shows clear flaws in your logic, which does not take into account slow, but steady progression in the sport, even during the lifetime of athletes.


Except for the 3 point line, a few other rules changes, and an evolution of style (evolution is NOT THE SAME THING as progress) the game hasn't changed. If anything, Wilt's old school moves would be less defendable if you plucked him from 1972 and dropped him into today's NBA, because nobody has seen moves like Wilt's from a player the size of Wilt since...Wilt.
0:01.8 A. Walker makes 3-pt shot from 28 ft (assist by E. Williams) +3 109-108
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9qvmXiEuU
G35
RealGM
Posts: 22,522
And1: 8,070
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
     

 

Post#25 » by G35 » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:03 am

wigglestrue wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Wrong on several accounts, and debating something that wasn't even brought up. Why don't people read before they post, and respond to the points actually raised, instead of just seeing a name and shadowboxing with whatever misinformed generalized opinions they can vomit up.



Great example of how to kill a thread.

First, state an opinion.

Second, ridicule any opinion that doesn't agree with yours.

See Tommy, even you can kill a thread if you try hard enough!.........
I'm so tired of the typical......
User avatar
wigglestrue
RealGM
Posts: 24,124
And1: 170
Joined: Feb 06, 2003
Location: Wiggling, after hitting a four-pointer of Truth

 

Post#26 » by wigglestrue » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:10 am

G35 wrote:Great example of how to kill a thread.


The thread's been doing fine, thank you very much.

First, state an opinion.


I stated facts in the original post.

Second, ridicule any opinion that doesn't agree with yours.


#1 - His opinions weren't even related to my post.
#2 - They were verifiably wrong.

One of Wilt's signature shots was to simply reach over shorter players and kinda flick the ball into the basket, layup-style. That would get blocked every single time today.


No, it absolutely would not.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(Not an opinion. Just a fact.)

He was shut down pretty effectively whenever he played Bill Russel.
\

No, he absolutely was not.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(Not an opinion. Just a fact.)

Had Wilt been born 40 years later, I'm sure he would still have been a great center, but if you think he would have put up a peak season of anywhere close to 50/25 in the modern game, you're deluding yourself. He'd probably put up Hakeem-like numbers though.


And who had said that, at the time of his reply? No one.

See Tommy, even you can kill a thread if you try hard enough!.........


Again, thread's doing just fine. Bugger off. Thx.
0:01.8 A. Walker makes 3-pt shot from 28 ft (assist by E. Williams) +3 109-108
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9qvmXiEuU
User avatar
ponder276
Head Coach
Posts: 6,075
And1: 67
Joined: Oct 14, 2007

 

Post#27 » by ponder276 » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:23 am

wigglestrue wrote:ponder276 wrote:
NOTE: I used power lifting as an analogy because it has a measure of ability that can easily measured, unlike basketball, which is very subjective.

:rofl:

Dude, you're talking about lifting, which is one discrete action. Basketball isn't "very subjective" either, unless I missed it today when Stern implemented a fan-voting system to determine the winner of games. Are you trying to suggest that an aging overweight Shaq would dominate a peak Kareem or something? I don't get it.
I believe this shows clear flaws in your logic, which does not take into account slow, but steady progression in the sport, even during the lifetime of athletes.

Except for the 3 point line, a few other rules changes, and an evolution of style (evolution is NOT THE SAME THING as progress) the game hasn't changed. If anything, Wilt's old school moves would be less defendable if you plucked him from 1972 and dropped him into today's NBA, because nobody has seen moves like Wilt's from a player the size of Wilt since...Wilt.

a) Yes, lifting is a simple motion, much easier to master than basketball, and therefore less complex, with less room for improvement. I'd argue that basket ball has PROGRESSED much more than lifting.
b) I'm suggesting that an aging Wilt would not be a competitive player in todays NBA, which is the opposite of what you're suggesting
c) You are seriously saying that the game hasn't progressed? Watch some old footage - it's not just a style change, the vast majority of players in the 60s were absolutely cr*p compared to modern players
1964 NBA finals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTOPU5SvtIQ
1967 NBA finals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVtr2t7S ... re=related


I'm no Wilt expert, and am not hugely informed about basketball in the 60s, but it doesn't take an expert to see that the basketball played in Wilt's era was played at a very low level compared to the basketball played in the modern era. Also, you keep saying you've stated facts, but you've actually stated opinions.
Sorry that I misinterpreted your original post, but your point was incredibly unclear.

Anyways, I don't really see the point of continued argument, since you have already decided you're right, and are not going to listen to any argument I present. Keep living in your fantasy land where Wilt's moves would be even more unstoppable today than they were against the inferior competition of the 60s.
User avatar
wigglestrue
RealGM
Posts: 24,124
And1: 170
Joined: Feb 06, 2003
Location: Wiggling, after hitting a four-pointer of Truth

 

Post#28 » by wigglestrue » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:36 am

I'm suggesting that an aging Wilt would not be a competitive player in todays NBA, which is the opposite of what you're suggesting...Watch some old footage - it's not just a style change, the vast majority of players in the 60s were absolutely cr*p compared to modern players...Also, you keep saying you've stated facts, but you've actually stated opinions.


Okay, enough. Welcome to my ignore list.
0:01.8 A. Walker makes 3-pt shot from 28 ft (assist by E. Williams) +3 109-108
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9qvmXiEuU
User avatar
etopn23
Head Coach
Posts: 7,072
And1: 160
Joined: Feb 05, 2006

 

Post#29 » by etopn23 » Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:05 am

I don't think anyone is going to argue that basketball in the '60s was at the level it was today..... nor would anyone suggest that Wilt would put up the same gaudy stats in today's era.

BUT, you compare players relative to others in THEIR ERA, there are way too many extraneous factors to take in when crossing over from era to era. Wilt was the best player in the league during his prime. He dominated the league in the same way as the other greats did (Jordan/Bird/KAJ/Magic/etc.) It's ridiculous to discount his accomplishments because it happened before most of us were born.

This is completely irrelevant to this thread, but why does no one ever talk about Dr. J anymore? It seems like out of all the past greats, he gets the least respect. My father always told me about how great he was - made it sound like he was Jordan before Jordan. How is it that someone that great is so ignored?
User avatar
ponder276
Head Coach
Posts: 6,075
And1: 67
Joined: Oct 14, 2007

 

Post#30 » by ponder276 » Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:11 am

etopn23 wrote:I don't think anyone is going to argue that basketball in the '60s was at the level it was today..... nor would anyone suggest that Wilt would put up the same gaudy stats in today's era.

BUT, you compare players relative to others in THEIR ERA, there are way too many extraneous factors to take in when crossing over from era to era. Wilt was the best player in the league during his prime. He dominated the league in the same way as the other greats did (Jordan/Bird/KAJ/Magic/etc.) It's ridiculous to discount his accomplishments because it happened before most of us were born.

Agreed 100%.
Just wanna make clear that I'm not discounting Wilt's accomplishments, or his skill - I think he is probably the most dominant player of all time (relative to his competition), and were he born in the modern era, would still have put up stats on par with the great modern centers (Robinson, Hakeem, Shaq, etc.). I just didn't like the OP's logic, which apparently "proved" that basketball in Wilt's era was comparable to modern basketball.
User avatar
NO-KG-AI
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 44,084
And1: 20,035
Joined: Jul 19, 2005
Location: The city of witch doctors, and good ol' pickpockets

 

Post#31 » by NO-KG-AI » Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:16 am

ponder276 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


Agreed 100%.
Just wanna make clear that I'm not discounting Wilt's accomplishments, or his skill - I think he is probably the most dominant player of all time (relative to his competition), and were he born in the modern era, would still have put up stats on par with the great modern centers (Robinson, Hakeem, Shaq, etc.). I just didn't like the OP's logic, which apparently "proved" that basketball in Wilt's era was comparable to modern basketball.


Actually, I think it proved that Wilt is comparable to the modern era, you read to deep into it.

I think people can knock the 60's game, but certainly not the quality of big men.
Doctor MJ wrote:I don't understand why people jump in a thread and say basically, "This thing you're all talking about. I'm too ignorant to know anything about it. Lollerskates!"
User avatar
rrravenred
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 6,115
And1: 584
Joined: Feb 24, 2006
Location: Pulling at the loose threads of arguments since 2006

 

Post#32 » by rrravenred » Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:20 am

I remember a couple of interesting posts along these lines.

One is that Shaq would have had either a shorter career (due to the up-and-down nature of 60s ball) or would have been a markedly different player (in the sense that meat was not an asset if you had to lug it from one end of the court to the other ALL game).

The second is that Jordan would have been a markedly different player due to the fact that (as Writerman crudely put it) his tongue would have been chopped in half at SOME point due to hard fouls on the slasher in that era. This wasn't saying that he wouldn't have been effective, just that he would have been different.

And I think it's incorrect to state that the standard of play would have been fundamentally lower. A more regiemented training system (due to no high-schoolers and no raw international prospects) and a MUCH smaller league would have made the standard comparable, at worst.
ElGee wrote:You, my friend, have shoved those words into my mouth, which is OK because I'm hungry.


Got fallacy?
tsherkin
Forum Mod - Raptors
Forum Mod - Raptors
Posts: 92,222
And1: 31,807
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

 

Post#33 » by tsherkin » Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:52 am

Back on topic, let me drop a post from another Wilt thread on a different forum. Be forewarned, there's some stuff in here about Wilt vs. Jordan because that's where the thread was going during the time I posted. Anyway...

OK, let's talk Wilt.

Just to answer the previous question about head-to-head stats:

Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg against Russell in 143 games. He put 22 ppg, 32 rpg, and 10 apg on Russ in the '67 ECFs. He put 62 on Russell once and scored 50+ 6 other times against Russell and his Celtics. During the season in which he averaged 50+ ppg, he scored 50+ on Russell 4 times. He had his 55-rebound game against Russell (though, perhaps fittingly, the Celtics won).

Wilt averaged 30.0 PPG and 28.2 RPG in 94 regular season matchups against Russell (who posted 14.2 PPG and 22.9 RPG).

In 49 postseason matchups, Wilt managed 25.7 PPG and 28.0 RPG versus Russell's 14.9 PPG and 24.7 RPG.

Opposing Centers

The big names against whom Wilt played a lot were:

Bill Russell, Walt Bellamy, Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Spencer Haywood (during the last 3 years of his career, Spencer's 3 best years), he got 80 games of Bob McAdoo as a rookie and a dose of healthy Bob Lanier (Lanier's first three seasons, all 80+ games played).

Bells was at least 6'11, 250 and was drafted only two years after Wilt. Forget about Walter Dukes, worry about the 31+ ppg Bells dropped as a rookie. Yes, he was really only dominant for his first five years, but he was still an important and significant player thereafter.

And yeah, Kareem was a player during the last 4 years of Wilt's career (though Wilt only played 12 regular season games in Kareem's rookie year). Still, that includes Kareem's 3 best scoring seasons and two of his three best rebounding seasons.

Oh yes, and Cowens was there for the last 3 years of Wilt's career as well.

Wilt had competition and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Yes, some of it didn't enter into the league until later in his career but you'll notice that while he didn't score as much as he did as a younger guy, his efficiency skyrocketed, his rebounding wasn't affected and he became a deadly passer while retaining his reputation for outstanding defense.

The inclusion of competition (much of it with significant size, such as Kareem, Lanier, etc) did NOTHING to affect his ability to impact the game at an elite level.

So arguing that Wilt's competition were all 6'7 white guys is not only wrong, but pointless.

For the sake of argument, let's break it down by year:

59-60 Bill Russell, Dolph Schayes, Red Kerr, Charlie Tyra, Willie Nauls, Ray Felix, Clyde Lovelette, Walter Dukes, Phil Jordon
60-61
61-62 Walt Bellamy,
62-63
63-64 Nate Thurmond*
64-65 Willis Reed
65-66
66-67 Reggie Harding, Joe Strawler, Walt Wesley, Leroy Ellis, Mel Counts, Darrall Imhoff
67-68
68-69 Wes Unseld
69-70 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
70-71 Dave Cowens, Bob Lanier
71-72
72-73
72-73

* Thurmond and Wilt played together for their first two years, so I guess 65-66 is when they really became "competitors."

There were certainly shorter guys in the NBA in his earliest days but then, he also played Bill Russell and the others more often because the league was smaller.

So here, we've covered the standard argument.

But let's take this a little further, let's look at the average height of your generally NBA starting center in 1995, 2000 and 2008.

1995:

The entire Atlantic division had someone at least 7'0 tall starting more games at the 5 than any other player, including Shaq, Ewing, Montross, Willis, Benoit Benjamin, Shawn Bradley and Gheorge Muresan.

And Shaq, a physically imposing presence, still managed 29.3 ppg on 58.3% shooting over 20.2 FGA/g because the defense, despite the increase in height over previous eras, was insignificant. Shawn Bradley was a rag, Muresan couldn't move, Benoit Benjamin wasn't special and even good players like Ewing couldn't touch him. Shaq at this stage of his career was still under 315 pounds. Montross and Willis weren't really significant barriers either.

Wilt wasn't as heavy as Shaq but was ridiculously strong and considerably more skilled; there was nothing in the Atlantic division that would have been any more difficult than what he dealt with in his own career and plenty less than some of the other guys Wilt faced later in his career when he'd bulked up and slowed down a bit.

There were 3 legit 7-footers starting in the Central division and that's only if you count the 32 starts that Alton Lister had for the Bucks (that was more than anyone else at that spot and even if you don't ignore Vin Baker, who was only 6'11). They were Rik Smits and Will Perdue. I dare you to say anything about either. The division included Alonzo Mourning, of course, who didn't suck, but you're still not discussing anything that Wilt hadn't seen before in terms of defensive package and such.

In the Mid-West, you're talking about 34 starts out of Felton Spencer, David Robinson and Dikembe Mutombo as the seven-footers. You had a tiny guy (Lorenzo Williams, IIRC, about 6'9), some guys near the right height (including Olajuwon, of whom Wilt spoke highly).

The Pacific division was even worse; the only legit 7-footer was Divac and, like the Central division, there wasn't a soul with a prayer of guarding Wilt.

So, in '95, there were 27 teams in the league and of those teams, there were a fairly pedestrian 4 7-footers who could have really done anything against Wilt and only three of those were also offensive threats (Mutombo basically taking the Thurmond role, only less offense and more defense). There were two other guys (Mourning and Olajuwon) who looked similar in terms of height differential to Wilt's competition of the time.

Now, notice something...

What I'm saying about Wilt applies also to Shaquille O'neal, who was the same height as Wilt and, at the time, as heavy as Wilt was at his peak (and, for the 95-96 season and on, at least 15 pounds heavier than even that... the weight differential grew with time, of course).

So anyone who wants to make the argument that height is at ALL meaningful to what Wilt achieved needs to wonder how much Shaq padded his stats against teams that started, say.... Bo Outlaw or Tony Massenburg on any given night. Or Lorenzo Williams. Or BUCK Williams. Or AC Green. Or any random stiff who was just tall, of which there were PLENTY in the league at that time.

Let's put to bed height as a valid argument, hey?

When Wilt hit the league, he had competition. In his earliest years, his league was only 8 teams large and the proportion of competition represented that. There were perhaps 2 guys in the league who gave him a lot of trouble, so about a quarter of the teams in the league threw someone at him 12 times that gave him some trouble (Russell and Bells, mostly).

In the NBA of 1995, there were 5 guys of that type, 6 if you generously include Mutombo.

5 guys would be 17% of the league; 6 guys would be 20% of the league.

The proportion of significant competition had actually DECLINED by this period, suggesting that the exploits of players such as Olajuwon, Robinson, Shaq, Mourning, Ewing, etc were all inflated by a lower proportion of competition despite a significant peak in centers... a peak not unlike what Wilt would experience during his own career.

Now we fast forward to 2000, with two MORE teams in the league.

The significant players to consider are Mourning, what remained of Ewing (he was a 15/10 player at this point), Theo Ratliff (who posed no offensive threat), Shaq, David Robinson (steeply into his decline), Tim Duncan, and then Arvydas Sabonis (but he was old, injured and couldn't guard Shaq either). So really, scratch Sabonis, because Wilt was even MORE mobile. You could try to put 'Sheed on him but that wouldn't have worked either.

So again, you're talking about Mourning, Ewing, Shaq, Duncan instead of Robinson and that's it. In a 29-team league, that's down to 4 guys, representing just under 14% representation of significant competition. If you feel especially frisky, you can add Kevin Garnett to the list to bring it up to 17% or so. Garnett was a long, rangy defender but he would have gotten badly outpowered by Wilt, especially at that stage of his career because he hadn't finished filling out/bulking up yet. Webber never defended anyone and Karl Malone didn't have a prayer for guarding Wilt any more than did the strong 6'9 players of Wilt's own era. The PFs of the time didn't really stand a chance.

Flash forward to 2008 and 30 teams.

The only guys who would be of any significant offensive threat to him would be Yao Ming, Dwight Howard, Amare Stoudemire and Tim Duncan. Actually, you can probably look at Al Jefferson and Andrew Bynum, as well as Chris Kaman.

But Amare certainly doesn't stand a chance at defending Wilt; remember, this is a guy who gets ruined by Rasheed Wallace, he's not actually a competent defender 4 out of 5 nights. Kaman doesn't stand a chance either and his offense would be problematic against someone with the sort of size and mobility possessed by Wilt. And Bynum... is unproven as a primary option, heavily reliant on the triangle action and playing off Kobe. How he'd react to someone larger, stronger and a lot more athletic than he would be interesting.

So sticking with that first list, the guys that posed some notable threat to Wilt make a list 4 long, 6 if you're generous. That means you're looking at about 13-20% as your proportion for competitive players.

And that's AGAIN lower than what Wilt had even in the early portions of his career and that includes me ignoring good players who were under 6'10 or who aren't commonly discussed and thus have no reputation amongst younger posters.

Ultimately, height is nothing more than the argument of the petulant who refuse to accept that Wilt was a dominant player and would remain so today. Even at the peak of the center in modern times, proportional competition did not match the days of old and there were some absolutely spectacular centers during Wilt's career and against whom Wilt did not falter.

* * * *

Now, something else people don't like to talk about; what about Jordan's average height advantage?

Or did we forget that Jordan was projected as a small forward coming out of North Carolina and prefer to ignore that he generally enjoyed a noticeable height advantage against his competition as well?

Between 84-85 and 97-98, just how many large guards were there? Remember, small forwards generally don't count because he had the aid of Scottie Pippen for the bulk of his career in Chicago.

I'm not going to treat this in further depth because I'm lazy, but when the big names of the mid/late 80s and the 90s come up at the 2-guard, of whom do you think?

The top scorers from the guard position during Jordan's Chicago career (84-85 through 97-98) and who played at least 600 games in this time-frame:

Michael Jordan 31.5
Mitch Richmond 23.1
Clyde Drexler 21.5
Magic Johnson 20.4
Reggie Miller 19.7
Jeff Malone 19.7
Tim Hardaway 19.6
Isiah Thomas 18.8
Reggie Theus 18.5
Rolando Blackman 18.0
Kevin Johnson 18.0

Then it drops off into players like Dale Ellis, hersey Hawkins, Joe Dumars, Gary Payton, Ricky Pierce, Kendall Gill, etc, etc.

If you look at guys who played 300+ games, you get Latrell Sprewell and Penny Hardaway.

Obviously, Payton's average in that timeframe is a bit skewed by the low-scoring days of the earliest portions of his career, so we should adjust to remember that he was a 20-24 ppg All-Star, a DPOY, center of a team dynamic with Kemp, blah blah. But he was also 2 inches shorter than Jordan.

Now, let's take out the PGs. Bye, bye Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway and Isiah Thomas (all of whom were at most 6'2). That leaves Magic (whom Jordan faced at most twice a year except in 90-91), Richmond (who was 6'5), Reggie (who was a skinny punk who couldn't D up on MJ), Jeff Malone (6'4), Reggie Theus (6'7) and Rolando Blackman (6'6).

Now, how many of those guys were truly dynamic scorers and/or really good defenders?

Cooper was gone by the time the 90s started and Alvin Robertson was never a very good scorer. Payton's there, Theus was a dynamic offensive talent (if problematic in various ways), Drexler was extremely versatile but who else, you know? The talent pool at the 2 was a lot less diverse for Jordan than was the center pool for Chamberlain.

Iverson didn't get drafted until 1996, Kobe and McGrady weren't anything special until after Jordan retired, Magic was gone after 90-91, Drexler and Payton were out West...

So where was the nightly competition for Jordan?

Jordan was outstanding, don't get me wrong. He very much deserves to be mentioned in the top 5 and in the GOAT argument, I just want to make it abundantly clear that arguing height and competition (especially in Jordan vs. Wilt) is irrational and supports neither side because it is a patently ridiculous oversimplification of the facts.

* * * * *

Ultimately, what this argument comes down to is big over small.

Wilt was a nasty volume scorer but Jordan was better at the line.

Jordan was a great defender but a great big defender (like Wilt) will ALWAYS be more valuable than a wing defender of comparable talent. Wilt's rebounding is something that Jordan could never match and Wilt has the most prolific passing years of any center in NBA history. He was a master at both low- and high-post passing (though specific high-post guys like Walton, Russell and Kareem enter the discussion if you focus on the motion offense and such). Wilt routinely took over games offensively, dominated in other ways in which Jordan could not, etc, etc.

I think in any case made for Jordan, you have to somehow overcome the overwhelming potency of Wilt's ability to play lots of minutes in almost every game of the season for about as long as Jordan played for the Bulls.

Remember, in his 14 years, Wilt played in 1,045 of 1,148 games. He played 80+ games 9 times and averaged 45.8 mpg in the regular season, averaging over 47 mpg in 160 playoff games as well. He kept his defensive and rebounding efficacy as he grew older and even overcame a fairly significant knee injury when he was 33. It limited him to 12 regular season games but he played in 17 playoff games that year and then played in 82 games for each of his final three years. Durability despite heavy minutes logged is something to consider, especially given the impact he was able to exert in that timeframe in terms of rebounding and defense.

DrawF? He was immensely effective at putting pressure on opposition frontcourts, too; Jordan drew fouls at 0.356 FTA/FGA, which is pretty good for a wing... and pretty terrible for a big, something like an Al Jefferson or a Zach Randolph. Wilt drew at about 0.50 FTA/FGA. So you're talking about a guy who's got the ability (partially because of the nature of his game) to draw loads of fouls, moreso than Jordan. And while MJ was obviously a vastly superior free throw shooter and would have scored more points per game off of those FTAs, Wilt had the Shaq effect, where he could sabotage a team's gameplan by putting their entire frontcourt into foul trouble, limiting their effectiveness for the rest of the game or outright removing them from the game more frequently than could Jordan manage himself.

More to the point, it's infinitely easier to build a contender around a dominant big guy... it's the path you see taken with a lot of championship teams.

FWIW, check out some of the biggest names in NBA centers:

Bill Russell 11 titles
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 6 titles
Wilt 2 titles, Finals appearances with Philadelphia, Los Angeles and San Francisco
Hakeem 2 titles
Shaq 4 titles, Finals appearances with Orlando, Los Angeles and Miami

Wilt consistently led his team to contention and failed primarily when he ran into the superior Boston squads built around Bill Russell. The point remains, however, that he took three different teams to the Finals, teams built different ways with him filling different roles. Jordan, however, is an outlier in basketball. He had a very specific team built around him, a very difficult one to replicate in later eras (while the ability of a big man to remain the centerpiece has remained uch less difficult to emulate).

So in terms of his ability to translate across eras, you definitely have to penalize Jordan. In the 60s, Jordan might have been Jerry West, perennially turned away in the Finals by the Celtics. In the 90s/00s, Wilt might have been Shaq, enjoying a three-peat and maybe more on account of his superior defense and rebounding.

It's all speculative but if you're talking about who's the greatest, there are many angles to consider. Wilt has Jordan's number for statistical dominance but could not benefit from the sort of defensive recognition he deserved because All-Defensive squads didn't exist until late in his career (though he was All-Defensive First Team in his final season).

Despite radically altering his game mid-career, Wilt still held a comparable hold on the league in terms of scoring titles and has records Jordan never approached there, and as a rebounder... and he did things outside of his position better than did Jordan; such as Wilt leading the league in total assists one year while coming in 2nd in APG. He was top 10 in total assists 3 times over a four-year span (4th, skip a year, 7th and 3rd before finally leading the league to get his third consecutive top-10 finish).

Even if you ignore the entertaining Wilt lore that floats around, there is but one arena in which Jordan exhibits superiority to Wilt (well, two, since he has one more MVP but that's hardly a big deal since Wilt has 4 and is one of a select few to win three in a row): championships.

And since Wilt has two championships and won them in different ways, on different teams and faced competition earlier in his career the likes of into which Jordan never ran, I think it's hardly fair to draw upon that as a factor of any value.

But even if you penalize Wilt for that, I think he still comes out ahead on account of the fact that you go big over small. Jordan may be the guy who generally bucks that trend but Wilt is the guy who brings it back.
Harmless
Analyst
Posts: 3,143
And1: 2
Joined: Aug 11, 2004
Location: Philippines

 

Post#34 » by Harmless » Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:25 am

Let me get this straight. Is the OP saying that the NBA today is 5x worse than the NBA of Wilt's time?
ThaRegul8r
Head Coach
Posts: 6,448
And1: 3,037
Joined: Jan 12, 2006
   

 

Post#35 » by ThaRegul8r » Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:56 am

tsherkin wrote:
ponder276 wrote:One of Wilt's signature shots was to simply reach over shorter players and kinda flick the ball into the basket, layup-style. That would get blocked every single time today. He was shut down pretty effectively whenever he played Bill Russel.


"Shut down," eh?

Don't like facts much, do you? He averaged 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg (several boards per game above his career average and above his single-season best as well) against Russell in 143 games. He put 22 ppg, 32 rpg, and 10 apg on Russ in the '67 ECFs. He put 62 on Russell once and scored 50+ 6 other times against Russell and his Celtics. During the season in which he averaged 50+ ppg, he scored 50+ on Russell 4 times.


Incorrect. In 1961-62 Wilt scored 50+ on the Celtics 4 times. Two of those were against Russell: 52 December 13, 1961 and 62 January 14, 1962, both in losing efforts. And in that latter game Boston was leading by 31 by the fourth quarter. When you're up by that much it doesn't matter what a single player on the other team scores because it's irrelevant to the bottom line
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters


Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
tsherkin
Forum Mod - Raptors
Forum Mod - Raptors
Posts: 92,222
And1: 31,807
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

 

Post#36 » by tsherkin » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:02 pm

ThaRegul8r wrote:

Incorrect. In 1961-62 Wilt scored 50+ on the Celtics 4 times. Two of those were against Russell: 52 December 13, 1961 and 62 January 14, 1962, both in losing efforts. And in that latter game Boston was leading by 31 by the fourth quarter. When you're up by that much it doesn't matter what a single player on the other team scores because it's irrelevant to the bottom line
TrueLAfan
Senior Mod - Clippers
Senior Mod - Clippers
Posts: 8,255
And1: 1,781
Joined: Apr 11, 2001

 

Post#37 » by TrueLAfan » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:16 pm

Don't get me wrong, but youtube videos of 60s basketball--filmed with one camera, converted from an unusual film rate to video (which always makes players look like they're running in slightly slow motion--a frame per second thing) from a darkened arena is not the way to judge relative play. Several years ago, in a video editing seminar, I thought it would be funny to look at films of old baseball players--Babe Ruth, Lefty Grove, Walter Johnson. (Cue 1920s piano music.) The archive I was at had some pretty great film of Walter Johnson from the mid to late 1910s. There was on film that was shot with an "advanced" camera that shot at 40 fps. We were able to look at individual frames and determine it took about 1.7 frames for the ball to reach the plate. That's around 97 mph. Walter Johnson brought serious heat. Of course, when you looked at the regular film, he looked like a bit of an idiot.

The weightlifting argument is a particularly poor one as well, for two reasons. First, players in basketball were competitive at advanced ages in later eras. You either have to jump through some elaborate hoops--there was a guy here the other day talking about how Kareem "improved" as he got older, which accounted for his success in his late 30s--to deal with that, or just admit that differences could not have been that great. And weightlifting is a (relatively speaking) single motion activity that repetitive motion and resistance training is used. Basketball is an incredibly complex sport that involves a balance of weight to muscle (do you want speed or strength? How much endurance?), strategy, different sets of coordination...it's vastly different. Because of the multiple physical skill sets, it isn't going to show the same type of improvement as weightlifting or swimming.

It's true that wigglestrue argument doesn't completely hold water in a general sense...it's the nearness argument. (A is near B, B is near C, C is near D...so A and D must be near each other.) But it's certainly sensible on many levels. Has the game progressed? Sure. Absolutely. Has it consistently progressed forward? Totally different question. IMO, it's gone up and down. Maybe half the guys in the league when Magic won his first title played against Wilt...when he was still a top 3 MVP candidate taking only 7 shots a game. If the game had truly "progressed" in an constantly upward line, or (my pet peeve) if players had suddenly become physically superior, past old players would not have been able to keep up. That didn't happen. We have enormous amounts of evidence. The players are the evidence.

The progression of strategy is largely a myth too. The triangle? From the 40s. The motion/Princeton offense? From the 30s. (Okay--perfected in the 50s and 60s, but you get it.) Houston is running pretty much a straight Princeton offense right now; Adelman has always liked to run it. It obviously works. Styles have changed; rules have dictated some of that. But changesd in style are much greater and more important than a sudden blossoming of basketball IQ and coaching/strategy.

And I want to crystal clear on this. I am comparing the quality of competition at C in the 60s and early 70s to today. And I am saying competition was better in the past. I listed the starting Cs from 1972 earlier. Go back to 1969. 14 team league. Wilt, Thurmond, Russell, Unseld, Hayes, Bellamy, Reed, Rule. Bob Rule is the low guy on the totem pole...and you're probably thinking "Never heard of him---must not have been good!" Rule was measure out at 6'10" or 6'11" today; sick offensive player. Averaged 23 and 10 for his first three years, and was near 30 and 12 at the begining of his fourth seasons when he had an (essentially) career ending knee injury. In 1969? 24 points, 11.5 rebounds a game. He's the eighth best C in a 14 team league. Think about it. Go back to 1966. Nine team league. Wilt, Russell, Thurmond, Bellamy, Beaty. (Willis Reed--a HOF C--was playing PF.) Beaty is the average starting C. Already talked about him He was a 21 and 14 guy in 1966. 1963? Wilt, Russell, Bellamy, Kerr, Embry. Wayne "the Wall" Embry was an average C. 18.6 and 12.3 a game, with brutal picks and screens (due to having a center of gravity about two inches above his ankles). Where's the weak competition? I think there are more good players today than ever before--expansion has kept overall play similar--but not at C. 1966 to about 1979 was the Golden age of the C.

Also--and I'm sure Point Forward might have more relevant things to say here--Wilt's play in game 7 of the EC finals was largely very good. For whatever reason, he got fewer touches in this game (Auerbach liked to triple team Wilt, forcing Wilt's teammates to shoot.) But Wilt scored 5 points in the final 2 minutes, and got called for goaltending with about 30 seconds left by Mendy Rudolph, who should have just worn a green and white jersey instead of the ref uniform. The call was that bad; one of the worst in NBA history. Without it, Wilt and the Warriors would have likely won the title. There are seasons and games where Wilt didn't play his best and could have done more...but I'm not at all sure game 7 of the ECF was one of them.
Image
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,350
And1: 9,904
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

 

Post#38 » by penbeast0 » Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:02 pm

Weightlifting is a particularly bad (or good if you prefer) argument because of the use of steroids which is practically required to be a world class weightlifter nowadays. They do work to build muscle mass (at a cost) and this directly affects weightlifting more than almost anything else.

This would therefore be a pretty weak argument except that probably the strongest argument for modern players over older players is the increased musculature . . . . which comes from modern weight training and from steroids which I would guess is an even more common issue in basketball than it is in baseball . . . just they don't test for it with any seriousness. I would guess that over half the league uses/used steroids to get their body shape . . . I would too if I was trying to get an edge in a multimillion dollar physical activity where slight edges are magnified (Achilles's Choice to quote Larry Niven).

Edit/added . . . . I will say that I don't think Kevin Durant was using them . . . at least not before this year. :wink:
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.

Return to Player Comparisons